HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 22 78 PC Minutes1
August 22, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
August 22, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr.
Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William
Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Huffman; Dr. James Moore and Tim Lindstrom,
ex-officio, There were no Commission members absent. Other Officials present were
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
The minutes of March 14, June 27, July 25, and August 1 were approved as
written. Several changes were made in the minutes of June 20.
Resolution of Intent - Site Inspection Fees
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff feels that the best approach to reaching
an agreement on inspection fees will be for the Zoning Administrator to do a study to
see if charging a lump sum inspection fee will be feasible. Currently a $10.00
fee is being charged for each additional inspection that is necessary.
Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator; commented that he disagrees with some points
that were made in a letter received from Mr. Sandy Lambert concerning inspection
fees. Mr. Dick stated that currently his staff is to small to cover compliance
with all site plans. Currently a flat fee of $10.00 is being charged and $10.00
for each additional inspection in the critical areas. This fee is due and pay-
able before a certificate of occupancy car be issued. Mr. Dick stated that he
feels it should be the responsibility of the developer to notify the Inspections
Department when they are ready for these inspections.
Mr. Easter asked what are the steps necessary for a developer as far as fees
till the building is completed?
Mr. Dick stated that first the site plan must be approved by the Planning
Commission. The fee for this is $50.00 for less than 5 acres. Next the Building
Permit is issued. The fee for this is aminimum of $10.00 and depends upon the
value of the building. This is followed by the Grading Permit (if no site plan)
the fee is $25.00. Then a bond must be issued for roads, landscaping, etc. The
footing inspection should then be done which has a fee of $10.00. Walls and
framing are then inspected followed by electrical and plumbing inspections.
Mr. Rotgin stated that Mr. Dick has mentioned that the Building Permit fee
is based on per inspection. He stated that this is currently not the practice,
a flat fee is being charged at this time. He said that he had no objections to
2
extra help on sites. This prevents -A stakes, but the cost for fees are passed
along to the buyer.
Mr. Dick stated that it is the responsibility of the developer to stake out
footings. He also commented that it is difficult to catch the pouring of the
concrete. for this reason he prefers to inspect the staked out footings.
Mr. Rotgin commented that he feels the footings should be inspected after they
have been poured. If the ditches for the footings are dug and it rains the footings
can be washed out. He said he feels �_*SeLds to be more co-ordination between Building
Inspections and Zoning. He also stated that he thinks 24 hours is a sufficient time
limit to allow for an inspection.
Col. Washington stated that he thinks Mr. Dick is mainly interested in location
and building quality and wouldn't want to see open trenches.
Mr. Stallings stated that he feels that the ditches should be seen with some
indication of the depth of concrete and also be inspected afterwards.
Mr. Dick stated that he does not have the manpower to take a transent out in
the field. He does not feel that it is unreasonable to charge $10.00 and have the
developer call in to check if things are being done properly.
Mr. Easter asked if the stakes for the footings are being measured in relation-
ship with property lines on site plan.
Ms. Melcher, a representative for the League of Women Voters, stated that they
are in support of Building Inspections effort to correct some of the problems that
have developed in the past. She stated that she did not feel it was unreasonable
for the contractors to call Inspections when a inspection was needed.
Col. Washington asked what is the difference between an individual and a
commerical site plan?
Mr. Easter stated that the only difference is when a building is being built.
Mr. Dick informed the Commission that it is necessary to check more technical
points with a commerical site plan. A residence only needs to have the house staked
out.
Mr. Easter stated that he would like to see the Ordinance simplifysome of the
inspections, so that maybe some of the inspections could be combined into one trip.
Mrs. Graves commented that she was interested in how the City handled this
situation.
Mr. Stallings stated that the City doesn't charge inspection fees. He commented
that this is probably due to the fact that they do not have to cover as much distance
as the County.
Mr. McCann stated that he was concerned about p.,uting an ordinance on the books
when the the department was understaffed and improperly trained.
Mr. Easter commented that he feels if it is possible as many inspections
as possible should be combined. He stated that he feels building is becoming quite
a problem.
D
3
Mr. Dick stated that he feels the Inspectors needed to be notified when an
inspection is needed. He said that he could not have the personnel running out to
the site every day to see if an inspection is needed.
Mrs. Graves stated that she thinks the developers are more concerned with
having a fixed time limit for inspections.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the site inspections fees could be based on the size
of the project.
Mr. Payne stated that if the inspections fees were based on the size of the
project and you had a project that was easy to inspection and was valued.high.this
would be legally unwise.
Col. Washington moved for approval of Section 17-6-4 with the additional of
the words "as approved by the Board of Supervisors" added. Mr. Huffman seconded
the motion.
Mr. Dick stated that he feels somethina should be in the ordinance to define
when the Inspectors should be notified by developers.
Mr. Easter stated that things would be left open for the Zoning Administator
to set the rules. If the County ever had an unreasonable Zoning Administrator this
could cause problems.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned whether having a time limit of 24 hours for inspections
should be added to the ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that he thought having an absolute time requirement is unwise.
He commented that he feels having an inspection within 24 hours if possible would be
safest.
Mr. McCann commented that to a developer $10.00 is nothing compared to having
a crew wait around for inspection. He also stated that this would be no fault of
the Inspector due to being understaffed.
Mrs. Graves stated that she feels it is possible for a developer to plan ahead
and give the Inspections Department a call when an inspection is needed.
Section 17-6-4 was approved by a 6-3 vote as moved by Col. Washington.
Col. Washington stated that the Commission should ask the Zoning Administator
to come up with schedules and requirements before taking this matter before the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Easter agreed with him that Zoning, Planning and Inspections get together
and come up with better schedules and regulations.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral of Section 17-6-6. Mrs. Graves seconded
this motion.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission could have the Board defer Section
17-6-4 until Section 17-6-6 has been approved so they can see complete package.
The motion lost on a 4-5 vote.
W1
Mrs. Diehl asked if the fees and requirements are being included Section 17-6-6.
Mrs. Graves moved to approve Section 17-6-6 as is. Mr. Huffman seconded the
motion. The motion was approved with a 6-3 vote.
SP-78-37 - Westvaco
Mr. Roosvelt of the Highway Department stated that he did not feel that Route
600 could hold up under the traffic from 35 ton trucks for very long.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the width and alignment of the road should be.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the minimum width should be 20 feet.
Mr. McCann asked if there was any weight limit on the road.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that the posting of a weight limit depends on the
detrioration of a road. He also stated that since the chipping operation could be
considered as a process of making paper and could possibly be determined as permanent
Westvaco could be eligible for Industrial Access funds.
Mr. Vest asked Mr. Roosevelt if he knew an estimate of the cost of improving the road.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the cost is determined by what is required. He feels
that $220,000 to $250,000 would be adequate if cost is carried by Westvaco. He also
stated that if Industrial Access funds were used the road would have to come up to
higher standards.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the sight distance was on Route 641 in both the north
and south directions.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he could not say what the sight distance is at that
point. He stated however that there have been problems where Rt. 641 meets Rt. 29.
Mr. Rolston, an adjacent landowner, submitted a petition with 84 names. Mr.
Rolston stated that there would be safety problemsif the wood chipping mill was
located in this area. He stated that he and the other landowners have a nice quiet
neighborhood and didn't feel they should be imposed upon.
Mr. Sprouse asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had noticed how the road has deteriorated
since the large trucks have been using the road.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had not noticed since the day he was out there
he was more concerned with width and alignment.
Mr. Sprouse stated that the trucks will be a load on the Highway Department
and a noise problem.
Mr. Easter asked if there was sufficient right-of-way to widen the road.
Mr. Roosevelt feels the road can be widened to 20 feet without additional right-
of-way. If more right-of-way is needed it may mean -the road shoulders would have to
be narrowed.
5
Mr. Harrington, an adjacent landowner, doesn't feel that 35 ton trucks can
handle the road, especially the area behind his house, which is a dirt road and
on a very steep grade.
Mr. Ryall was interested in the noise level.
Mr. Easter stated that he thought it was about 90 decibels.
Dr. Moore asked if anyone know how wide 35 ton trucks were.
Mr. McCann stated that they are 8 feet wide and very hard on a road.
Mrs. Diehl asked what was meant by the peak period of business.
Mr. Shreve stated that this peak was usually from January to February, 24 hours
a day, and seven days a week.
Mrs. Diehl mentioned the fact that the wood yard was not listed on the Special
Permit.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Administrator has to take all applications for
Special Permits. He is then left with having to interpet them. Discussion as to
whether his interpetation is correct is with the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Easter asked if Westvaco had tried to find other sites for their wood chipping
operation.
Mr. Shreve stated that the location and on work construction made, this site
perferable.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that he does not consider this operation a permanent
site. He feels that the Westvaco could move the chipper when ever they need to,
if they have not invested enough money to make this an unwise move economically.
He feels that this is something that should be considered " before the site can be
considered permanent.
Mr. McCann stated that he knows that many people are opposed to this operation,
but the County needs this type of operation and it has to be located in an A-1 zone.
Mr. Gloeckner commented that he feels this operation should be located in an
Industrial zone.
Mrs. Diehl noted that currently M-2 zone was the only one that allowed for this
type of operation.
Mr. Easter stated that the agricultural community depends upon this sort of
operation especially when the farmers have had a bad year, but he agrees that this is
not the place for this sort of thing because of the condition of the road.
Mr. McCann moved for denial, Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. The motion was
denied unanimously.
M
0
David Spradlin Garage Site Plan
Mr. Gaston stated that Mr. Spradlin had agreed to plant trees between power
easement and bumper location, has changed entrance, but this is more convenient
for Mr. Spradlin and helps with the buffer. He also said that Mr. Spradlin had
not actually cut any trees, but had cleared up the brush around them. He stated
that this was just a misinterpertation of the Special Permit.
Mr. Easter commented that he thought the issue was the fact that the garage
was in operation without a permit being issued.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, which was seconded by Mr. McCann.
The motion was approved unanimously with the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval of water and septic facilities;
2. Commerical entrance as approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation;
3. Note that all landscaping is to be installed during the fall planting season
1978 and maintained in a healthy condition;
4. Drainage plan subject to County Engineers approval;
5. Fee due of $75.00;
6. All vehicles shall be confined to the parking area.
Gregory Quinn Final Plat
The applicant requested withdrawal of his plat. Mr. Gloeckner moved for
withdrawal, Mr. McCann seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
John and Martha Johnson Final Plat
Dr. Moore asked that since the road already served 9 Lots would any further
subdivision mean they would need another road. He stated that he recommends that this
road only serve this property.
Mr. Keeler stated that they would not want an increase in traffic because of
the sight distance. He commented that lot 13 has road frontage and the road could
go there.
Mr. Easter wanted waiver number 2 explained to him because he feels that a
road is an important factor.
Mr. Keeler stated that in the limitation of the development itself there
is adequate space for two cars to pass if one vehicle pulls over to the side of the
road. He also said that the road will not be serving any more vehicles than before.
Mr. Johnson, the applicant, stated that he questions having to remove the
trailer in order to build. He stated that the problem is that an aunt lives in the
trailer located on his sister's property, and his sister may -want to build before the
aunt passes away. (Condition la)
Mr. Keeler stated that if condition la is struck the number of dwellings can
increase by one without Planning Commission approval.
II
Mr. McCann made a motion for approval striking la. Mr. Gloeckner seconded
the motion, which was approved unanimously with the following conditions:
1. Notes on plat:
a. Note more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval;
�r✓ b. No further division without Planning Commission approval;
C. No portion of a septic system drainfield shall be permitted within 200 feet
of any stream;
2. Improve sight distance to the north to Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation commerical entrance standards;
3. Gravel base for 6-8 lots to be approved by County Engineer. This condition may be
waived should the County Engineer determine the existing base is adequate to serve
8 dwellings;
4. Maintenance agreement for road to be approved by County Attorney and recorded;
5. Written Health Department approval of Parcel A.
Grassmere Farm Final Plat - proposed 20 lot subdivision; located at end of Route 679
south of Route 250 near Ivy.
Mr. Swett, the representative, stared t t nnhe is concerned with the location of
where the road bed drops below 14 feet,Aw th`scSt and with Highway Department right
to the use of the road. He also said that at the point 300 feet from grate work
where the road goes up the hill more than blasting will be needed. The problem is
more with the wash. He also stated that it is possible for two vehicles to pass,
but if one is careless there could be problems.
Mr. Gaston stated that he does not think the roads are beyond widening.
Mr. Swett commented that there is no abandoned road. He stated that the road
has never been used by the state and would like to delete this from the plat.
Mrs. Graves stated that she would not consider a waiver of the minimum of 14
feet. She said that school buses and fire trucks had to be considered as well as
passenger vehicles.
Mr. Payne stated that the law stated that a private road should have a 30 foot
right-of-way. He stated that he is aware that the recorded plat shows something
like this old road. He feels that this possibly could be an old public road, but is
not passable now. He commented that if this is a private road an easement will be
needed. If a public road the Planning Commission can not abandon it, only the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Swett stated that this is not a public road. He has checked with the
Highway Department and a gentleman who had lived there since 1934, who stated that
there was no public road.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval, Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which was
approved unanimously with the following conditions:
1. Appropriate private road standards for internal roads;
2. Improvement of existing state road from railroad tracks to end of state main-
tainance to the private road standard for 11 through 20 lots; provided that the
developer shall not be required to expand the width of the road to the full
width required by such standard in any case in which to do so would not be
reasonably feasible; but provided further that in no event shall any portion of
such road be less than 14 feet in width subject County Engineer's approval;
3. Grading permit;
in
Grassmere Farm Final Plat (cont.)
4. Health Department approval;
5. A maintenance agreement subject to County Attorney's approval;
6. Note that only one dwelling per lot unless Planning Commission approves;
7. Waiver of cul-de-sac leng}h requirement;
B. Waiver of 1" equals 100' scale requirement;
9. Officially abandon the old road;
10. Add stream end setback line in southeast corner;
11. Add words "of compacted gravel" to fire easement;
12. Fee due of $36.00.
Leonard Raines Preliminary Plat - proposed division into three lots; located south of
Route 663 and east of Route 644 near Nortonsville.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that it seems the Commission tends to waive private road
requirements for existing roads toofrequently.
Mr. Gaston informed him that there was no intention of waiving the private road
requirements on this plat.
Mr. Dickey, representative of the applicant, stated that the road on this pro-
perty has been there for 40 years. He does not feel that the private road require-
ments should pertain to this property. He stated that if the County had not
allowed other divisions of property there would not be 11 lots served by this road.
He also stated that the Commission has the right to waive private road requirements
in hardship cases. He commented that it will cost the applicant more to bring the
road up to standards than profit can be made for the property.
Mr. Raines, stated that he only wanted to have this property divided so that
each of the children in his family could have a portion and can legally own this
land.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels this is a hardship case because of the size
of the property (40 acres) and the other subdivisions were piecemeal.
Mr. Easter asked if these reasons were good enough to protect the County.
Mr. Payne stated that he thinks those reasons were very good ones to consider
this a hardship case.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the private road requirements have been waived seven
times, which is every time an existing road is involved. He feels that this could
cause problems.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval and Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The
motion was approved with a vote of 8-1, with the following condition:
1. All technical data supplied as required by the Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
Etna Oil Company Site Plan - Auto service station; located on Rio Road just west of the
Southern Railway tracks. (Route 631)
Ms. Holowinsky, representative of the applicant, stated that the landscape
plan on both sides adjacent to the property has been changed.
M
Etna Oil Company Site Plan (cont.)
Mr. Herring, a representative of Etna Oil, stated that the property will re-
main in one piece. The'Contract Purchaser is buying the whole thing.
Mr. Easter asked if two entrances were the best plan.
Mr. Slatter said that feels the entrance should be addressed when something is
done with the adjoining property.
Mr. Tucker stated that the two entrances would be best for service stations
because of the circulation of traffic.
Col. Washington commented that the site plan should be deferred until the
Commission has a plan and recommendations that coincide.
Mr. Payne stated that 90% of the problem with the entrance can be cured. If
subdivision is necessary for the balance of the property then the whole thing
should be reviewed.
Mr. McCann moved for approval, Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. The motion
was approved unanimously with the following conditions:
1. Soil erosion plan to be approved by Zoning Administrator. Including County
Engineer approval of proper compaction of fill;
2. Drainage plan to minimize water pollution;
3. Provide adequate space for landscaping around entire site within the property
boundary or obtain landscaping easements subject to County Attorney's approval;
4. Provide landscape plan including larger species type of trees; to be approved by
staff;
5. Relocate sign and light pole behind setback and protected from vehicle movement;
6. Commercial entrance to be approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation. This must either include a joint entrance with the divided property,
or must preclude any other entrance on Rio Road of the entire parcel;
7. Detailed sewer plan approved by the County Service Authority;
8. Provide all technical data as required by the Site Plan Ordinance including rear
yard setback;
9. Grading permit from the County and grading easement from adjacent owner.
Boar's Head Inn Site Plan - proposed additional 98 rooms and parking; located at inter-
section of Berwick Road and Wellington Drive.
Mr. Rogan, the applicant, stated that Phase II is not planned for addition to
Boar's Head Inn at this time. He plans this phase of development to take place in
the next two to three years. He would like to have the plan approved so that the
Commission would know what is going on out there. He also stated that it is im-
portant to see this plan go through so work can be started and be under roof by
winter.
Mr. Craven, a representative, commented that the dining room should be added
to Phase I and the parking requirements have been met.
Mr. Rogan stated that he feels two decel lanes are not necessary. He commented
that the traffic problem would be from people coming from town and not from the west.
He also commented that there is no reason to have a decel lane located on the pro-
perty and that there has never been a problem with parking and he would very much
like for the parking to remain as is.
le)
Boar's Head Inn Site Plan (cont.)
Dr. Twyman, an adjacent landowner, stated that he is greatly concerned with
the noise of buses and large trucks.
Mr. Rogan informed him there will only be cars.
Mr. Twyman also stated that drainage and traffic will cause a problem at the
crest of the hill at the Sport's Club.
Mr. Parker, an adjacent landowner, commented that everyone is concerned that the
proper engineering is done to handle the drainage. He stated that he feels sewer drains
or storm drains will be needed.
Mr. Craven stated that rain water comes from their property and property located
further up the hill. He commented that they are currently having storm drains put in
the parking area at this time. This will take care of the problem.
Mr. Gaston commented that the changes along Berwick Road are a nice way to change
this road. He also stated that if the staff adhers to amount of traffic along this
road the it could be required that the road be widened to 20 feet.
Mr. Rogan stated that he would rather give up the intersection than have a decel
lane on the property.
Mr. Tucker explained to him that as more rooms are added to the Inn the traffic
flow will increase and these changes are mainly to help with controlling this in-
creased flow of traffic. He said that the decel lane is more or less just a turn lane.
Mr. Tucker stated also that he doesn't think the Highway Department can require
changes in the decel lane that is already there. He believes this is up to the Plan-
ning Commission.
Mrs. Graves stated that she thought a light would be helpful at'.the Route 250
intersection.
Mrs. Diehl commented that she has had many comments to this effect.
Mr. McCann said that he thought they should have the roads aligned and not require
a turn lane until Phase II is submitted.
Mr. Rogan asked if a compromise could be reached and the parking be at an angle.
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not feel that the plan was a site plan.
Mr. McCann moved for approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion which was approved
by a vote of 8-1 with the following conditions: (Mrs. Graves dissented.)
1. Provide a soil erosion plan subject to the Zoning Administrator's approval;
2. Obtain a grading permit;
3. Redesign the parking on Berwick Road to accomodate diagonal rather than perpen-
dicular parking;
4. Realign Wellington Drive to form a perpendicular and geometrically smooth inter-
section as approved by County Engineer including approved traffic control signs;
5. Comply with all County water and sewage requirements;
6. Comply with all Virginia Water Control Board requirements;
7. Comply with all Virginia Health Department requirements;
Boar's Head Inn Site Plan (cont.)
8. Provide all technical data as required by the Site Plan Ordinance - Article 17
yy especially for Phase II;
9. Provide a landscape plan to be approved by staff;
10. Drainage from tennis courts area bf Sports Club to be directed into this Phase
I development sewer system;
11. Any lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and roadways.
Milodon Site Plan - proposed 12,000 square feet warehouse on 5 acres; located east of
Route 60� and north ofRoute 649 near Charlottesville Airport.
Mr. McKee, the applicant s representative, stated that he has submitted plans
for a water system this day. He also commented that they are providing a well system
and the building will be sprinkled when central water becomes available. He said
that they would like to have a variance for the fire hydrant.
Mr. Payne commented that he is concerned about the entrance and would like to
know if there are any provisions for connection between parcel to the south and
Milodon.
Mr. McKee said that there was no provision of this sort.
Mr. Payne stated that if there was no provision for access the North Rivanna Land
Trust does not have to allow for an entrance on the road.
Mr. McKee explained that the way that the road is planned it abutts the property.
He stated that if worse comes to worse he could have access on Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation right-of-way.
Col. Washington asked if the road for Milodon could be the permanent road for
the Industrial Park.
Mr. Glover stated that the road is located to close to the building to serve
that purpose.
Mr. McKee asked if the Highway Department would let them go with a temporary
graveled road.
Mr. Tucker stated that he was not sure of a time limit for a temporary road,
but the road would have to be bonded before occupancy.
Mr. Payne stated that if the land to the south was developed it would also
need a entrance. He said that he fears there will a problem with entrance every 200
feet.
Mr. Hogg stated that his client has some financing contracts which cause a time
limit for the project. He commented that his client would be willing to help in any
way possible.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the plat has a note which says "access for Industrial
Drive." He said that when this happens the road can be closed down. He feels that
there is no problem and the plan speaks for itself.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion which was
approved by a vote of 6-3 with the following conditions:
/Z
1. A grading plan and permit to be approved by County Engineer;
2. Provide a landscape plan subject to staff approval;
3. Provide a commerical entrance as approved by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation;
4. Provide a compacted gravel temporary roadway until a permanent inner circulation
system is provided according to approved standards for same; or a period of one
year, which ever is the shorter period of time.
Ashmere Final Plat - proposed division of lots 3,4,5,21 and 22; located on the west side
of Route 729 approximately 2 miles south of Route 250.
Mr. Lafferty, the applicant, stated that the road with 50 feet of right-of-way
is bordered by pines. He also said that he is trying to buy the adjoining property.
He also commented that he did not want to sell lot 21 as it was drawn at this time.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it would be easier to drop lot 21.
Mr. Easter mentioned the fact that the road would have to be bonded all"the way
back.
Mr. Lafferty stated that he would onlyrto see the road extended 200 feet past
lot 5. If it goes 120 feet past lot 22 and 4 that would be sufficient.
Mr. McCann moved for approval and was seconded by Mr. Huffman. The motion was
approved unanimously with the following conditions:
1. All provisions of the preliminary plat approval be met which are:
a) Grading permit;
b) All private road requirements to be met, including road constructed to
proper standards and a maintenace agreement;
c) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
d) Health Department approval;
e) Notes on final plat:
"No further division along private road without Planning Commission approval."
"No more than one dwelling per parcel on private road without Planning Commission
approval;
2. Provide technical data as required by the Land Subdivision and Develognent Ordin
ance and noted on August 8th memo to Morris Foster;
3. Delete lot 21;
4. Show road construction at least 120 feet westward along lot 5.
Old Business - Amendment to Huntington Village Subdivision
Mr. Keeler noted that some changes had been made on the plan which were, the
cul-de-sac had been changed fram 30 feet to 60 feet, building group will be 4 feet
closer to the cul-de-sac. An additional apartment has been added to the subdivison,
but this would not affect the density requirements for 1 acre. He also commented
that this movement was made to help with the drainage problem.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which was
approved unanimously.
13
New Business
Mr. Gloeckner stated that Mr. Lindstrom made a good point about changing
variances for private roads and feels the Commission needs a work session.
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 1:30 a.m.
M